PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla., December 30, 2013 — The story of what happened that night when Americans were abandoned in Benghazi to die will not go away. Despite the appearance of Susan Rice on 60 Minutes two weeks ago, and a New York Times article yesterday reviving the fable that a video was to blame, disturbing questions remain.
Why was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11? It should be standard practice that high value targets do not move around in hostile terrorist territory, which Benghazi was on that day.
When the message came that the consulate was under attack, why were all immediate resources not allocated? As a former career Soldier who sat on the House Armed Services Committee, I am well aware of security protocols. Why weren’t they followed?
Where was President Obama the evening of the attack? We were treated to all the White House situation room pictures of the raid on Osama bin Laden — but where are the photos from that night?
According to the president, he ordered Secretary of Defense Panetta and CJCS General Dempsey to get the Americans in Benghazi the support they needed. If true, then who disobeyed the president’s order, and why did Obama never follow up with Panetta and Dempsey?
Who came up with the video scapegoat excuse, and why was the U.N. ambassador called out for the Sunday shows and not the person responsible, the secretary of state?
Ambassador Stevens had met with a Turkish representative in Benghazi, but why were his requests for additional security denied, and by whom?
Here is my assessment: Ambassador Chris Stevens was sent into the heart of Islamic terrorist badlands, where the black al-Qaeda flags flew prominently, to negotiate an arms transfer from the Libyan rebels, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-supported terrorists groups through Turkey and into Syria to support those Islamic terrorist, rebel groups. Something went awry since intelligence chatter had picked up al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri calling for retribution attacks after the drone killing of an al-Qaeda leader.
There is widespread support for a select committee to help answer these questions. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has brought forth a resolution, H.Res. 36 which has 178 cosponsors, yet Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor refuse to bring it to the House floor for a vote. Is there something they know that they prefer not come to light?
Earlier this month, Rep. Wolf announced his retirement from Congressional service. Is this a similar coincidence to General Carter Ham, Commander of USAFRICOM, and his retirement?
Two weeks ago when Leslie Stahl interviewed current National Security Advisor Susan Rice on 60 Minutes regarding Benghazi, Rice said she didn’t have time for “false controversies.”
In that moment we were given a vision into a heartless, callous, and despicable person. To think that the interview segment showed Rice spending time with her children, yet she showed no remorse in her dismissive response considering the widow and child of former U.S. Navy SEAL Ty Woods or the mother of State Department IT Specialist Sean Smith.
When asked why she was sent out on five Sunday talk shows she responded that it had been a painful and stressful week for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
It would be painful and stressful to look the surviving family members of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty, and Ty Woods in the eye and knowingly lie to them. And if that was a stressful week for Clinton, then she has certainly disqualified herself from ever being Commander-in-Chief, among many other reasons.
This weekend, David D. Kirkpatrick, writing in the New York Times, is attempting to revive the debunked fable that Benghazi was the result of an anti-Islam video. For this individual to insult the intelligence of the American people is offensive. People don’t show up for a spontaneous demonstration with heavy arms, including mortars that were fired with precision accuracy.
Kirkpatrick also tries to separate any ties of this attack to al-Qaeda, which illustrates the naive comprehension of progressive socialists when it comes to Islamic totalitarianism. To them, if some jihadist does not walk up, give them a business card, and say, “Hi, I’m from al-Qaeda and I’m here to kill you,” then the threat isn’t real and can be pushed aside.
The fact lost on Kirkpatrick is that Ansar-al-Sharia is an Islamic terrorist organization — one of their founders was a GITMO released detainee — just as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaat-al-Islamiya, Islamic Jihad, and the Muslim Brotherhood are, and they all pose a clear and present danger, regardless of their name. It is their common purpose that unifies them.
So why did Kirkpatrick write this piece at this time?
Obviously the specter of Benghazi is not going away. It is causing the liberal progressives of the Democratic Party and their media propaganda arm grave concern. Something happened in Benghazi that would make the Iran-Contra scandal look like Romper Room.
Benghazi is not a phony scandal. It is certainly not a false controversy; four Americans are dead because of it.
The shadow of Benghazi — lies, deception, abandonment, and murder — hangs over Washington, and especially the White House. The number one lie for 2012 should have been an anti-Islam video being responsible for the Benghazi attacks, but the media was too busy propagandizing in order to win an election.
Benghazi is a deep stain, an unwashed sin on the Obama administration, on Hillary Clinton, and on willing accomplice Susan Rice. Justice will be served. They know it, and it scares them, all of them.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.